Man sentenced to prison for using free speech.

[Clementine]

A public official has no reasonable expectation of not being taped. They tape our calls to 911 and when we get pulled over but oh that's right we are just the sheeple we must do as told or else.

Legislation has given those in positions of authority nearly unlimited power.

Each state has it's own laws regarding recording people. In my state, it's legal as long as one of the people being recorded consented. That means I can legally record any conversation between myself and another person. I would obviously be the one who consents. In some states, I believe you have to say up front that the conversation is being recorded so the other person(s) can decide whether to say anything.

When you call most customer service depts, there is usually a recording stating that the call is being recorded or monitored. If you object, I guess you can't speak with customer service or have your problem solved. 911 calls are always recorded and there is no warning of such. The difference is that private people must warn, government doesn't have to.

It's illegal in all states to record other people (when you are not present) who have no idea they are being recorded. Of course, police, FBI and any government agency has the right to do what they want when they want.

Editing to add more info. New Hamshire is one of 12 states that does not allow recording conversations without consent of ALL parties.

Who must give permission to record a telephone or in-person conversation?
Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). This is called a "one-party consent" law. Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation. Furthermore, if you are not a party to the conversation, a "one-party consent" law will allow you to record the conversation or phone call so long as your source consents and has full knowledge that the communication will be recorded.

In addition to federal law, thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia have adopted "one-party consent" laws and permit individuals to record phone calls and conversations to which they are a party or when one party to the communication consents. See the State Law: Recording section of this legal guide for information on state wiretapping laws.
When must you get permission from everyone involved before recording?

Twelve states require the consent of every party to a phone call or conversation in order to make the recording lawful. These "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington (Hawai'i is also in general a one-party state, but requires two-party consent if the recording device is installed in a private place). Although they are referred to as "two-party consent" laws, consent must be obtained from every party to a phone call or conversation if it involves more than two people. In some of these states, it might be enough if all parties to the call or conversation know that you are recording and proceed with the communication anyway, even if they do not voice explicit consent. See the State Law: Recording section of this legal guide for information on specific states' wiretapping laws.

Can you record a phone call or conversation when you do not have consent from one of the parties?
Regardless of whether state or federal law governs the situation, it is almost always illegal to record a phone call or private conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent from at least one party, and could not naturally overhear. In addition, federal and many state laws do not permit you to surreptitiously place a bug or recording device on a person or telephone, in a home, office or restaurant to secretly record a conversation between two people who have not consented.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations

 

[manifold]

Today 04:10 PM - permalink, manifold

you're going to get infracted (or banned) for posting **** outside the flame zone

I recommend you edit

Look who's posting the c-word outside the flame zone now?

 

[Dissent]

He informed the pig and the other 2 people he was recording their phone call. Any regular person would not have been persecuted for this but he was because of what he does for a living and keeps pigs accountable.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A public official has no reasonable expectation of not being taped. They tape our calls to 911 and when we get pulled over but oh that's right we are just the sheeple we must do as told or else.

A high school principal and a school secretary are public officials?

Who knew?

Well, in the sense that they're civil servants, employed by the government, yes.

 

[Conservative]

Today 04:10 PM - permalink, manifold

you're going to get infracted (or banned) for posting **** outside the flame zone

I recommend you edit

Look who's posting the c-word outside the flame zone now?

Not very bright, are you. I did not post it. I quoted Dissent's post, and your public message, which contained it, as proof he and you posted it. Had I edited it out of his post, or your public post, he/you could have legitimatly claimed I edited his/your post, which is a bannable offense, dumb ass.

 

[Cecilie1200]

UPDATED: Mueller convicted of 3 charges of illegal wiretapping | New Hampshire NEWS03

This is unfuckingbelievable. What the fuck happened to the first amendment....man I actually had hope for New Hampshire.

I guess he wasn't as politcally connected as Linda Tripp! She basically got away with the same thing. Don't see where the "free speech" comes in. He was guilty of a breech of privacy. Didn't get much time. If he's going to whine about losing his freedoms, how about the freedoms of the people he wiretapped?

He didn't wiretap anyone. He recorded his conversation with a pig who likes to assault teenagers and the scum school officials who allowed it.



He did inform them he says he edited it out of the video he put on the internet.

A public official has no reasonable expectation of not being taped. They tape our calls to 911 and when we get pulled over but oh that's right we are just the sheeple we must do as told or else.

A high school principal and a school secretary are public officials?

Who knew?

Yes they are. They were also told they were being taped.

1) How in the hell do you think you record a phone conversation without connecting the recording device to the phone, which would fall under the definition of "wiretapping"?

2) Can you prove that he told them? Because it's pretty apparent that HE couldn't prove it.

 

[manifold]

Today 04:10 PM - permalink, manifold

Look who's posting the c-word outside the flame zone now?

Not very bright, are you. I did not post it. I quoted Dissent's post, which contained it, as proof he posted it. Had I edited it out of his post, he could have legitimatly claimed I edited his post, which is a bannable offense, dumb ass.

Apparently I'm a lot brighter than you since you copy/pasted what I posted in his visitor messages, and you didn't edit the c-word merlin.

That still qualifies as YOU putting it in a post, outside the flame zone.

 

[Conservative]

Look who's posting the c-word outside the flame zone now?

Not very bright, are you. I did not post it. I quoted Dissent's post, which contained it, as proof he posted it. Had I edited it out of his post, he could have legitimatly claimed I edited his post, which is a bannable offense, dumb ass.

Apparently I'm a lot brighter than you since you copy/pasted what I posted in his visitor messages, and you didn't edit the c-word merlin.

That still qualifies as YOU putting it in a post, outside the flame zone.

Again, you're not very bright.

 

[Dissent]

Lol.

 

[Politico]

Man sentenced to prison for illegal wiretapping

Fixed it for ya.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

he is convicted of illegally recording others....

He illegally recorded police officers in public? How?

 

[Shelzin]

1) NOT "prison"
from the article:resulting in a net sentence of 85 days at the House of Corrections.

2) He didn't have their permission to be recorded
According to Florida law, he needed to inform them they were being recorded or have an audible tone that indicates recording is taking place.

I'm forced to agree with Hort... It has to be announced or at least not hidden. They can't make you turn it off... But...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

UPDATED: Mueller convicted of 3 charges of illegal wiretapping | New Hampshire NEWS03

This is unfuckingbelievable. What the fuck happened to the first amendment....man I actually had hope for New Hampshire.

I guess he wasn't as politcally connected as Linda Tripp! She basically got away with the same thing. Don't see where the "free speech" comes in. He was guilty of a breech of privacy. Didn't get much time. If he's going to whine about losing his freedoms, how about the freedoms of the people he wiretapped?

You can only be guilty of a breach of privacy if there is an expectation of privacy. Since the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that there is no expectation of privacy in a public place he could not have breached anyone's privacy by recording them in public.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A public official has no reasonable expectation of not being taped. They tape our calls to 911 and when we get pulled over but oh that's right we are just the sheeple we must do as told or else.

A high school principal and a school secretary are public officials?

Who knew?

They are when they are acting in their official duties in public at the school.

 

[Conservative]

UPDATED: Mueller convicted of 3 charges of illegal wiretapping | New Hampshire NEWS03

This is unfuckingbelievable. What the fuck happened to the first amendment....man I actually had hope for New Hampshire.

I guess he wasn't as politcally connected as Linda Tripp! She basically got away with the same thing. Don't see where the "free speech" comes in. He was guilty of a breech of privacy. Didn't get much time. If he's going to whine about losing his freedoms, how about the freedoms of the people he wiretapped?

You can only be guilty of a breach of privacy if there is an expectation of privacy. Since the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that there is no expectation of privacy in a public place he could not have breached anyone's privacy by recording them in public.

The article in the OP doesn't state 'where' the recording was done, or 'where' the conversation took place. 'public place' is an assumption.

 

[Shelzin]

1) NOT "prison"
from the article:resulting in a net sentence of 85 days at the House of Corrections.

2) He didn't have their permission to be recorded
According to Florida law, he needed to inform them they were being recorded or have an audible tone that indicates recording is taking place.

I'm forced to agree with Hort... It has to be announced or at least not hidden. They can't make you turn it off... But...

Whoa... Hang on... This happened during school? In a public place?

Hang on... Catching up on facts.

Edit: Unless this is a privte school this is fucked up.

 

[Mr.Nick]

UPDATED: Mueller convicted of 3 charges of illegal wiretapping | New Hampshire NEWS03

This is unfuckingbelievable. What the fuck happened to the first amendment....man I actually had hope for New Hampshire.

My dad got into some shit and recorded it and he wasn't able to use it (video) at his trial because he would have been charged with a felony under wire tapping laws (despite the fact the tape clearly shows massive contradictions from the police report)..... So pretty much if he showed the video he would have been found not guilty and the cops would have faced perjury charges, yet if he did show the video he would be found guilty of wire tapping.... It's a catch 22.

Thankfully the wire tapping law is in the process of being repealed here in Illinois, now the ACLU and several other lawyers are interested in my dads case and several other cases that are similar.

Individuals should be allowed to document interactions with LEO's - not only for their protection but of the LEO's themselves from any wrong doing....

It's always a good idea to tape encounters with LEO's....

 

[Mr.Nick]

1) NOT "prison"
from the article:resulting in a net sentence of 85 days at the House of Corrections.

2) He didn't have their permission to be recorded
According to Florida law, he needed to inform them they were being recorded or have an audible tone that indicates recording is taking place.

I'm forced to agree with Hort... It has to be announced or at least not hidden. They can't make you turn it off... But...

Whoa... Hang on... This happened during school? In a public place?

Hang on... Catching up on facts.

Edit: Unless this is a privet school this is fucked up.

It's pretty simple.

A kid took his sisters purse at school in the cafeteria (typical family sibling nonsense), the cop tuned him up and there was video of it. Somehow a website called Copblock.org (Muller) got a hold of the video and did some investigating into the incident and recorded some phone calls - he was charged with recording those phone calls under a "wire tapping" law, was found guilty of it and was sentenced to the county jail...

 

[Shelzin]

I'm forced to agree with Hort... It has to be announced or at least not hidden. They can't make you turn it off... But...

Whoa... Hang on... This happened during school? In a public place?

Hang on... Catching up on facts.

Edit: Unless this is a privet school this is fucked up.

It's pretty simple.

A kid took his sisters purse at school in the cafeteria (typical family sibling nonsense), the cop tuned him up and there was video of it. Somehow a website called Copblock.org (Muller) got a hold of the video and did some investigating into the incident and recorded some phone calls - he was charged with recording those phone calls under a "wire tapping" law, was found guilty of it and was sentenced to the county jail...

Ok. Then he is guilty of Wire tapping.

What caused the problem is legal, how he dealt with the problem is illegal.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Whoa... Hang on... This happened during school? In a public place?

Hang on... Catching up on facts.

Edit: Unless this is a privet school this is fucked up.

It's pretty simple.

A kid took his sisters purse at school in the cafeteria (typical family sibling nonsense), the cop tuned him up and there was video of it. Somehow a website called Copblock.org (Muller) got a hold of the video and did some investigating into the incident and recorded some phone calls - he was charged with recording those phone calls under a "wire tapping" law, was found guilty of it and was sentenced to the county jail...

Ok. Then he is guilty of Wire tapping.

What caused the problem is legal, how he dealt with the problem is illegal.

Why so cops can beat up kids???

So cops can act like storm troopers??

I'm sure you will think differently when you eventually get fucked by the cops - then your whole train of thought will change.

Around here - you tell a cop you have civil liberties he will tase your ass or fuck you up really nice, but if that shit was caught on video that is "against the law."

Several individuals around my neck of the woods have been beaten to death by police in the last year...